Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

It is certainly Kenya's freedom to burn its ivory. Claiming "stockpile destruction fortifies the credibility of demand-reduction campaigns in East Asia," however, is puzzling. How could supply reduction facilitate long run demand reduction?

@Ross
Thank you for the explanation of strategy. However CITES which is the main framework for protecting wildlife has one glaring backdoor. Once an animal is extinct it is no longer protected and anything surviving can be traded openly, and obviously as the source has disappeared the price can rise. For this reason it is suggested bluefin tuna is being stockpiled in deep freeze as a speculative opportunity as bluefin tuna wild stocks decline markedly. Really all trade should be banded forever for any animal on the endangered list

The explanation is in the piece. Here's the logic: If you try to reduce demand for a product, but actively maintain a supply of that product, it sends a confusing signal to the market. If you want consumers to stop buying something, surely you also have to communicate that it will no longer be available. For as long as governments stockpile ivory, consumers are likely to buy ivory whenever they can, believing that the trade will one day resume. That undermines the credibility and therefore the efficacy of demand reduction campaigns. These campaigns try to convince consumers that their purchase of ivory directly destroys elephants. Why would they believe that line if they see African governments keeping ivory in the hope of being able to sell it one day?

I remain unconvinced. If some 100 tons are auctioned into the Asian market, prices are likely to fall. Auction proceeds are likely to be considerably less than $ 110 Million. But, even half of that many generates financial resources to invest into Elephant Protection in Africa and permits to spend several millions into educational campaigns in Asia to create more awareness of the damaging effect of the mass killing of elephants for ivory. Regarding the stockpile of ivory - the elephants are long dead. The ivory is not a dangerous substance which would cause more harm if sold (like drugs would). The burning of ivory remains symbolic but unconvincing.

Thanks Bernhard for your comment. The problem is that 100 tonnes would not be released onto the market at once. It would be sold to legitimate traders (chosen by the government), who would then sell the value-added product to consumers as per a normal business model. There are two problems with your argument. One is that using the proceeds from stockpile sales to fund demand reduction campaigns is contradictory - you'd be selling to the consumers you're trying to convince should not buy ivory. Second, for as long as governments can make money from selling stockpiles, what incentive do they have to actually prevent poaching? They can simply wait until the elephant is poached and then confiscate the ivory to sell it themselves. While the ivory is not a dangerous product, as you point out, its sale sends a dangerous signal to the market that the trade is legitimate. Destroying the exchange value of ivory, and increasing the use value of elephants, means that you have to destroy exchange value at both the supply and demand ends of the spectrum.